BeechTalk - BT - NEW 11 seat Piston Twin

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jun 2015, 17:39

http://p2012.tecnam.org/

What's all this??

Apparently this one is safer than all the other singles :peace:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jun 2015, 17:43

Username Protected wrote:

http://p2012.tecnam.org/

What's all this??

Apparently this one is safer than all the other singles :peace:

Would 1 Lycoming be able to pull a plane carrying 11?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jun 2015, 17:44

Aimed at short haul airline market. Turbines too $$$ there. A mogas capable 9 seater would get some traction.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jun 2015, 18:28

Will it even maintain altitude on one?

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jun 2015, 18:38

Username Protected wrote:

Will it even maintain altitude on one?

The power loading is not too bad, so I would guess it will climb on one even. Though I doubt it would be very sporty. Isn't there a SE climb gradient required for this weight aircraft. Not sure why Jason would have interest in a non pressurized 170 kit airplane!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jun 2015, 18:47

This will sell like hot cakes. There is simply nothing available to replace all those Britten-Norman Islanders etc that are run by little small island hopper airlines. There are tons of those around and that's why you never see a BN Islander cheap or on the used market for long.

We forget that most of the world's aviation regulation demands that passenger traffic be in twin engine aircraft. A Caravan or a PC12 just isn't an option for most of these operators.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jun 2015, 19:15

Wow! That thing is uglier than a Pilatus.... :duck:

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jun 2015, 19:27

Buy one and I'll fly it for research purposes.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 04 Jun 2015, 19:48

Michael you need that thing!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Jun 2015, 00:03

Username Protected wrote:

Wow! That thing is uglier than a Pilatus.... :duck:

Easy ,easy now.......it's not uglier....just safer

Adam, 11 seats is enticing.......I'm thinking I want pressurization......

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Jun 2015, 00:13

Looks take a baby Twin Otter.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Jun 2015, 07:22

Tecnam seems better at drawing pictures than building airplanes; just saying.

Jgreen

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Jun 2015, 09:01

Username Protected wrote:

Aimed at short haul airline market. Turbines too $$$ there.

I don't think so.

A turboprop is far more reliable (especially against a 350 HP Lyc), requires far less maintenance, burns cheaper fuel, and has far better passenger acceptance than a piston.

I bet the actual cost in airline service is less for a turboprop when all the costs are considered, such as the impact of canceled flights and down time for oil changes and engine overhauls.

Mike C.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Jun 2015, 09:08

Username Protected wrote:

Tecnam seems better at drawing pictures than building airplanes; just saying.

Jgreen

They're already building the first one.

Got a pretty big payload and will also run on mogas

Username Protected · **Posted:** 05 Jun 2015, 09:17

600 miles? That is a very specific market. Interesting plane but not attractive for personal or business GA with that range.

A plane with a high useful should always have the option of mega range for a few passengers. Using 40gph if you dropped 7 passengers weight you could have a 1,500NM range with 4 people.

NEW 11 seat Piston Twin - Crandall will flip his lid